PREPARED BY:
HEATHER CHI

FOR: NUS Geography Department

(1) Introduction

The growth of the organic movement in Singapore in recent times is an exciting trend that merits closer analysis. While the increasingly number of organic shops, supermarkets and pasars selling local and imported organic produce, organic farms and organic interest groups is promising , the reasons for the rise in awareness, production and consumption of organic food has yet to be extensively studied. Conversations with people in the environmental movement reveal that peoples’ reasons for “going organic” are multiple and complex; some are guided by a strong environmental and moral ethic; others are attracted by the health benefits promised by organic food companies; yet others do so out of religious or spiritual reasons.

The purpose of this study, hence, is to investigate the attitudes that organic producers, traders, retailers, consumers have towards organic farming and organic food with a view to analyzing: (1) the primary reasons for producers and consumers in Singapore to choose organic and (2) the manifestations of their beliefs in ways that are evident in their farming methods, business operations and/or consumption patterns. This study aims to examine deeper the nature-food-health nexus in people’s attitudes towards organic food and farming with the aim of discovering if a shift in people’s perception of the relationship between nature – natural, unadulterated physical environments, food and health would have the potential to encourage more environmentally-friendly consumption patterns.

(2) Research Methodology

This study is based on findings and analysis from literature reviews, interviews and an online survey. A total of 11 interviews were conducted with organic farmers, retailers, traders, a food science and nutrition graduate, a retired Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) official and an organic advocate to investigate their attitudes towards organic food and organic farming .

An additional 100 surveys were carried out with Singaporeans via an online platform to gauge their organic consumption practices and attitudes to organic food and farming . Of the 100 respondents, 5% were of age group 13-17, 65% were between 18-25; 22% were between 26-35; 6% were between 35-45 and 2% above the age of 45. 75% of respondents were organic consumers.

Fieldwork was supplemented by readings on organic farming and food, and human attitudes towards food and agriculture.

(3) Literature review: The ideological underpinnings of the organic movement

Organic farming is commonly defined as a form of agriculture that relies on crop rotation, green manure, compost, biological pest control, and mechanical cultivation to maintain soil productivity and control pests, excluding or strictly limiting the use of synthetic fertilizers and synthetic pesticides, plant growth regulators, livestock feed additives, and genetically modified organisms.

The organic movement was, in many ways, the product of the second wave of environmentalism in the United States post World War II that emphasized the value of wildness preservation and ecological health (Petulla, 1980). Sir Albert Howard, commonly regarded as the father of organic farming, based the principles of organic farming on the belief that soil health was intricately linked to plant health, and hence human health. His advocacy of “an approach to the plant that stressed the unique physical environment, the interrelation with other plants, the climate, water relations, and soil fertility” (Barton, 2001) essentially revolved around a form of agriculture that closely resembled the most “natural” model of vegetation – the forest.

Arguing that ‘man’s survival depended on the efficient use of nature, and that human health depended upon a broad-based preservation, in which forests, parks, and farms-the “earth’s green carpet”-provided physical and spiritual health’ (Howard, 1945), it is clear that the original ideology of the organic movement was firmly rooted in the nature-food-health nexus within which nature was “extended” from the forest to incorporate agriculture and the human body (Oelschlaeger, 1991), the quality and long-term sustainability of food was intimately linked with the health of the environment within which it was grown, and the holistic health of the consumer was dependent on both how “naturally” the crop was grown and the consequent implications of this on the nutritious value of the crop produced.

The overall belief was that, with careful management of the agricultural environment based on respect for its inherently valuable natural qualities (such as the ability to recycle nutrients efficiently), nutritious food could be cultivated for an extended period of time, contributing positively to the health of all who consumed it.

The increasing popularity of organic products has also been attributed, in contemporary times, to the sensitivity of organic food companies to consumers’ desire for “stories” that relate the food to the land it was grown on and the lives of the animals from which it originated. This appears to strengthen food’s ‘natural’ credentials and hence, its health benefits (Pollan, 2006). The emphasis that many organic retailers place on the marketing of these aspects is certainly testament to this.

(4) Results – Public attitudes towards organic food

A 2005 survey on consumer attitudes towards functional foods in America revealed that awareness and interest, and consumption, of foods for the purposes of health are indeed on the increase. More than eight out of 10 (83 percent) Americans are interested in learning more about foods that have health benefits that go beyond basic nutrition and may reduce the risk of disease or promote better health, whilst the number of Americans who are eating foods for their functional health benefits has increased from 72 percent in 1998 to 78 percent in 2005. Similarly, our survey and interview results reveal organic producers’ and consumers’ strong belief in the health benefits of organic food.

Organic producers: Re-conceptualizing immunity

The emphasis placed by all four organic farmers on the importance of understanding the intimate relationship between nature, food and health, specifically in the context of human body immunity, suggests that strong links between these three concepts exist in the minds of these organic producers.

For Mrs. Evelyn Lim, a retiree-turned-farmer and former Honorary Secretary of the Nature Society, the greatest value of organic farming is how it places the concept of health and immunity back into the context of nature. Said Mrs. Lim,

“What most people don’t understand is that we’re a composition of many many organisms – good bacteria and bad bacteria. The problem with conventional agriculture is that it’s obsessed about killing pests with all kinds of things (chemical fertilizers), but after awhile we’ve got to realize we’re sharing this world with them, we’ve got to learn how to live with them. Organic farming…does that.”

Mrs. Ivy Singh-Lim, who owns a lifestyle farm open for tours that also has an adjacent eatery, adds that the very activity of working the land contributes to better health, both through the physical aspects – “active living…not active aging” – as well as through its indirect contributions to a better understanding of food systems and its impact on human health. Said Mrs. Singh-Lim:

“I grew up learning to work the land. Back then (1970s), even the poor households had a food garden and we learnt how to love the land and treat it with respect. These days, people talk about going ‘green’ but focus on little lifestyle aspects without considering what they’re putting into themselves and where it came from, or whether that’s even safe or not. We have to go back to the Earth to learn these things.”

For Mr. Chai, a food science expert who worked with AVA, chemical fertilizers, and even high technology, are poor substitutes for what nature has to offer:

“Hydroponics and aeroponics…cannot survive in Singapore. Why? The vegetables are totally tasteless! In this kind of farming, they only include 18 nutrients for the plants… but in the soil, there are over 50! How can the plants be healthy and tasty?”

Farming advocate and founder of local NGO, Ground-Up Initiative, Mr. Tay Lai Hock, conceptualizes the nature-food-health nexus a little differently. For Mr. Tay, the value of organic agriculture is not in the health and environmental benefits of organic food per se, but in the opportunities that farming creates for communities to “connect with the land and, through healing the hand, heal themselves”. This will eventually inspire them to connect with others, thus creating a virtuous cycle whereby a community builds cohesion and solidarity, as well as respect for the land, through partaking in the meaningful activity of farming. Within such a unique ideology, we can nevertheless still observe the strong relationship between “nature”, “food” and “health” whereby the naturally-embedded activity of food production that is representative of a sustainable lifestyle, is seen as a powerful tool for strengthening personal and community health.

From these comments, it is clear that some farmers and farming advocates in Singapore see the health of people and the environment as inextricably intertwined and four broad themes related to the nature-food-health nexus can be drawn:

1. the popularity of organic farming as a livelihood is due in part to the desire amongst farmers for a lifestyle that emphasizes a personal connection between with the Earth;
2. the process of organic farming is healthier for the environment not solely because of its process (i.e. not using pesticides and excessive chemicals) but also because it is a form of agriculture in which plants are nurtured instead of treated as economic resources – and it is this attitude which encourages people to adopt a way of living that is inherently more sustainable;
3. the activity of farming itself increases awareness amongst people of how food is grown and its relationship with other aspects of nature such as soil nutrients, water and other organisms and, hence, encourages the re-conceptualization of food as the product of its environment and a deeper respect for the relationship between environmental health and food quality; and
4. human health is heavily dependent on the ‘immunity’ and nutritious value of the food that we consume; hence a form of agriculture that focuses on eradicating the “undesirable” elements of the biological environment such as pests and weeds with a view to enabling crops to grow rapidly is inherently misguided as we lose the immunity that we could have developed through living with these other creatures.

Organic retailers and consumers: Farm vs. industry, nature as health

The perspective of some organic retailers consumers – that the environment plays a critical role in determining food quality and human health – displays strong parallels to the sentiments expressed by farmers and farming advocates, with 70% of survey respondents believing that organic products were more environmentally friendly and 53% believing that organic products were healthier. 64% of respondents also directly acknowledged the statement that “environmental health has a direct impact on human health – we should not ‘pollute’ our farms with chemicals.”

The relationship between nature and human sustenance is reflected in the views of a middle-aged (36-45) organic consumer,

“Development of any society depends on its ability to sustain itself. If this sustainability is at the cost to the environment, we are only destroying our own livelihoods and habitats. So the only way is to be organically aware and to support such lifestyles.”

The views from organic retailers Tuyet Nguyen and Mr. Lawrence Hoong, however, are slightly more nuanced. Both feel that it not simply about “eating organic food” but “embracing the whole concept of sustainable living, with changing your dietary practices as the most relevant step” (Nguyen, personal correspondence) and “changing your entire lifestyle and conception of food and health” (Hoong, personal correspondence). While the former had decided to come into the organic business in order to create an alternative business model which could both profit and promote ethical and sustainable living, the latter chose to start selling organic produce in order to give health-conscious consumers more choices of better food – displaying two different, but overlapping, conceptualizations of the nature-food-health nexus in the psychology of those who actively promote organic living.

The emphasis on personal health aspects of organic food in marketing was also reiterated by organic retailers Mr. Foo (Unitednature) and Mr. Kang (Country Farm Organic) suggesting that consumers are most responsive to organic food when these are linked to health benefits. Through personal correspondence and through reviewing promotional materials, it is clear that the quality of organic foods most frequently emphasized is “free from pesticides and chemicals”, with a strong link made between these “man-made” inputs and ill health.

As put by a early-middle-aged (26-35) organic consumer,

“Physical health reflects the environmental health. Looking at the diseases around us, we do not become sick out of the sudden but it’s an accumulative process. Food that we eat, contaminated by chemical, stays in our body and create havoc for us. It’s a vicious cycle.”

Despite the apparent sensibility of such an assertion, however, such a simplistic reduction of nutritional sciences, as well as the processes involved in cultivating crops and keeping them fresh for consumers, is potentially dangerous as consumers are likely to equate “natural” with “healthy” without a proper conception of how these two concepts are related.

Says Food Science and Nutrition graduate, Mr. Meraj Huda,

“Organic food is not necessarily safer than processed foods. The producers of organic foods do not highlight that that lack of preserving chemicals etc. do not always mean that the consumer is not going to be susceptible to diseases which the organic food may possibly carry. There are valid reasons why food needs to be treated, e.g. for increased shelf life, reducing harmful bacteria, etc. The human body is resilient and is learning to cope with processed foods too. In fact, consuming only organic foods could possibly reduce the immunity of a person and harm him/her in the long run.”

The lack of consumer awareness about the holistic impact of food on health, coupled with consumers’ strong desire to consume foods believed to confer specific health benefits, may be one of the reasons why a large number of organic consumers consume organic products ‘indiscriminately’ (i.e. without a proper understanding of the organic certification procedure and selecting ‘organically certified’ instead of uncertified but allegedly ‘organically-grown’ crops). The presence of organically-grown and organically-certified products side-by-side in many organic shops shows that many consumers are not particularly discriminating. This phenomenon is lamented both by organic retailers who are committed to bringing in only organically-certified produce (such as Go Organic Farm), as well as those who feel that such a trend is dangerous as the relative ‘ease of eating healthily’ tends to reduce consumers’ initiative to seek more knowledge and develop a better understanding of how human health is maintained through effective eating and living.

(5) Conclusion

This preliminary research, which explores the nature-food-health nexus within which organic farmers, retailers and consumers situate their motivations and attitudes towards organic food, has revealed that psychological connections between environmental health, plant health and human health are very strong. Despite the similarities, however, the understandings of these relationships differ greatly between people who grow, sell, study, advocate and eat organic food. Whilst the organic farmers interviewed stressed the importance of understanding the process of farming and human immunity in order to understand how growing and preparing food in particular ways impacts the Earth, food quality and health of consumers, organic retailers and consumers tend to accept simple, linear relationships between “naturally-grown, environmentally-friendly” food and positive health benefits. More dialogue between these two groups of people – whose relationships with each other include both the market and the intellectual sphere – is necessary in order to promote a more holistic awareness and understanding about the connections between nature, food and human health.

Endnotes

The interviewees are: Mrs. Evelyn Lim (60, Farmer, Green Circle Organic Farm), Mrs. Ivy Singh-Lim (60, Farmer, Bollywood Veggies), Mr. Chuo Sing Kwong (70, Farmer, Golden Technologies PL), Mr Alan Seah (52, Farmer, Go Organic Farm), Mr. Richard Kang (50, Managing Director, Country Farm Organics), Mr. Lawrence Hoong (50, Managing Director, Organic Paradise), Mr. Foo Kok-sin (50, Managing Director, Unitednature), Ms Tuyet Nguyen (34, Managing Director, L’Organic), Mr. Chai Boon Fah (70, Former AVA official), Mr. Meraj Huda (42, Food Science and Nutrition graduate) and Mr Tay Lai Hock (45, Founder and Director, Ground-Up Initiative). They were interviewed between Sep 22, 2008 to Sep 26 2008.

References

Books and journal articles

Barton, G., “Sir Albert Howard and the Forestry Roots of the Organic Farming Movement”, Agricultural History, 75(2), pp. 168-187.

Howard, A. (1945), Farming and Gardening for Health or Disease, London: Faber and Faber.

Oelschlaeger, M. (1991), The Idea of Wilderness, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Petulla, J.M. (1980), American Environmentalism: Values, Tactics, Priorities, College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Pollan, M. (2006), The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, New York: Penguin Press.

Others

International Food Information Council (IFIC) (2005), Survey on Consumer Attitudes toward Functional Foods/Foods for Health.

Promotional material and information booklets from the various organic farms, importers and retailers.

PREPARED BY:
HEATHER CHI

FOR: NUS Sociology Department

Social centres, or autonomous spaces for community organizing, are a vital part of the infrastructure of social movements within cities. These spaces, which range from cafes and bookshops to hostels and incubation centres, give social activists a place to breathe, take action and experiment with managing their ‘activist’ lives collectively. In Singapore, Post-Museum, an independent cultural and social space, which was founded in 2007 as an open platform for “examining contemporary life, promoting the arts and connecting people”, has come to serve as such a node within networks of activist navigations and interactions in Singapore. One of the core events started and run by Post- Museum is The Singapore Really Really Free Market, the Singapore chapter of the Really Really Free Market (RRFM) movementii, which represents “a non-hierarchical collective of individuals who form a temporary market based on an alternative gift economy”. At this event, nothing is for sale and everything – be it ‘stuff’ or ‘skills’ – is shared free. The Really Really Free Market, which is also a common element of many social centres throughout the world, holds as its major goal to build a community based on sharing resources, caring for others in the community and improving the collective lives of all.

This paper aims to contribute to current scholarship on place-based collective action in Singapore by providing a sociological perspective on the role of The Really Really Free Market as a ‘priceless’ space for collective action and meaning-making in the context of Post-Museum and the surrounding Little India neighbourhood, as well as the wider context of Singapore civil society. This paper draws from existing literature on markets, place-making, collective action, and knowledge- practices to provide insight into the nature and importance of connections and networks of solidarity that have been made possible by, and continue to sustain, this distinct space.

Research Methodology

This paper is based on primary and secondary research conducted in 2009. The Singapore Really Really Free Market, which was started by Post-Museum in 2009, has been organized six times: on January 18th, March 22nd, May 21st, July 12th, August 2nd and October 4th. I have personally experienced the SRRFM in its July, August and October sessions, participating in the Market all three times by bringing items for giving away, helping to set up the venue for the Market, and chatting with other Market participants during the event, many of whom are regulars at the RRFM and Post- Museum. Following the October session of the SRRFM, I launched “The Really Really Free Market Survey” (accessible online at: http://bit.ly/3SPU4a) which was sent to the SRRFM Facebook groupiii and garnered 13 in-depth responses. Perspectives on the SRRFM are drawn both from direct experience at the Market, as well as the insights provided through the survey. All photographs were taken by Mr. Tay Yong Kang, to whom I am very grateful.

For What It’s Worth: Three Analytical Frameworks

The Really Really Free Market (RRFM) is a richly-layered social movement that brings together many diverse and interconnected fields of contemporary social inquiry, serving as an instructive case study for understanding and analyzing the social role of markets, the dialectical processes of place- and meaning-making, and the community basis for social action. These three lenses, from which the paper draws its main arguments, are further elaborated below:

Social role of markets: The Really Really Free Market is situated within the “alternative economy”, which can be broadly defined as “spaces of exchange and circulation (…) set up as alternatives to conventional and mainstream economies” (Hughes, 2005). Within the alternative economy, the RRFM fills a unique niche by completely breaking from the capitalistic system through abolishing monetary valuation, and hence all incentive and ability for market actors to demand, compete and supply. As a “temporary market”, the RRFM occupies a physical setting similar to conventional informal markets, with significant conceptual and operational differences. In the RRFM, there is, strictly speaking, no exchange: all participants are free to offer items and services and/or take items and services that are on offer, regardless of any actual or perceived economic value. In addition, with clear divisions between ‘buyers’ and ‘sellers’ removed, what results is a non-intuitive ‘exchange’ environment that challenges market participants to redefine their conception of the ‘market’, their role within it, as well as their relationship with other market participants. As will be argued, such reflexive and critical thinking processes, facilitated by RRFM, can contribute significantly to meaning-making for market participants, further enhancing their social experience of the market, and potentially forming the basis for further collective action.

Place- and meaning-making: The philosophy of the Really Really Free Market centers on sharing and participating in a collective experience. Although the RRFM is intended as a ‘placeless’ movement that can happen anywhere and everywhere with “neither hierarchy nor central coordination”iv, more often than not the Market is organized at a specific location and time. This has two implications for place- and meaning-making. First, the market serves as the spatial and temporal manifestation of an ideology of community support and sharing and hence serves as a symbolic space for market participants, new and regular, who are supportive of this ideology. Consequently, the very existence of the market contributes to a collective sense of participating in a common cause that itself generates meaning and community attachment. Second, following Lefebvre (1974), the RRFM can be understood essentially as a “lived space” and “space of representation”, produced and performed by market participants, that facilitates the creation and sustenance of social and community ties, as well as the mutual exchange of ideas and goodwill. The non-hierarchical nature of the RRFM means that conventional barriers to participation are largely absent, increasing the opportunity for independent and collective place- making, as well as the dynamic generation, modification and mobilization of ‘knowledge-practices” by diverse actors (Casas-Cortes et al., 2008), which can also enhance their social experience.

Community basis for social action: The Really Really Free Market is borne out of the anarchic tradition of decentralized, autonomous action. Building on the social role of markets, as well as the unique role that the RRFM can play in facilitating place-making and meaning-making processes among market actors, the RRFM often emerges as a setting and catalyst for collective action. Indeed, a preliminary survey of RRFMs in the United Kingdom (Social Centres Network, 2007) reveals that successful markets are frequently those that are embedded within existing local structures and environments, whether these be activist networks, neighbourhood organizations or established community spaces. Indeed, the frequent overlap of these settings suggests that the RRFM may be uniquely positioned to build bridges between different social movements, as well as between social movements and other segments of society who do not consider themselves ‘ideological’ or ‘radical’ – potentially forming a community basis for greater social cohesion.

An point of tension inherent in the RRFM model, common to many anarchic organizations, is that between intentionally and explicitly creating a radical space, and that of allowing an ‘inherently’ radical space to evolve its own meaning and character through the place- and meaning-making strategies of market actors. Veteran RRFM organizers CrimethInc Ex-Workers’ Collective recognizes that the RRFM model only works because its content is “inherently radical” and that “emphasizing form over content can only distract and alienate”. I argue that the process is dialectical; “place- marketing” efforts of the SRRFM organizers through publicity and explicitly communicating their ideology are interpreted and internalized by market participants in a variety of ways, contributing to richness in the meaning and practice of radicalism in the movement itself.

Lastly, I wish to make a number of additional commentaries, interwoven into the main arguments, about the value of the Really Really Free Market as a space for autonomous action in the political context of Singapore. In many ways, Post-Museum has come to serve as an important space for independent and creative social action in Singapore, and the SRRFM must be understood within the context of a diverse, and multi-polar civil society movement seeking genuine autonomy in an authoritarian country that has largely monopolized urban social spaces. A related aspect to be considered is the relationship between Post-Museum and its immediate environment – the neighbourhood of Little India. The character and demographic of the ethnic enclave has contributed an interesting dynamic to the SRRFM, with many of the market participants being South Asian migrant workers from the surrounding areas. In addition, the significance of the Little India neighbourhood as a space for civil society activism has also contributed to an appreciation of, and support for, the SRRFM from other activists, and activist networks, in Little India and beyond.

Another final dimension that is interesting to consider is the multiple “oppositional” positions of the RRFM, which defines itself as a counter-capitalistic alternative economy, non-hierarchical and yet non-reactional (Starr and Adams, 2003). These positions, despite articulating the philosophy and ideology of the RRFM transparently, nevertheless frame the RRFM as an “additional set of (non?) economic possibilities (…) rather than a broad-reaching resistance to global capitalism” (Hughes, 2005), wherein the latter is still adopted as the conventional benchmark. This tension, which is also found in other ‘alternative organizational economies’ such as time-banking and local currency schemes discussed by Hughes (2005), can have significant effects on the social constitution and dynamics of the market, and the way it is contextualized in wider urban society. These issues, however, are beyond the scope of this paper.

Who’s Free?: Sociological perspectives on the RRFM

The social and anthropological value of markets has been highlighted in previous research on urban economic organization. From an anthropological perspective, markets have been studied as “nodes of complex social processes and generators of cultural activity, as well as realms for economic exchange (…) organized around complex, multithreaded relationships that intertwine gender, ethnicity, class and kinship, as well as economic role” (Vanberg, 2001). The Really Really Free Market, which is founded on non-hierarchical and non-discriminating principles, attempts to transcend established and entrenched modes of market organization in order to provide an opportunity for people excluded from, or marginalized in, conventional market structures to share their items and skills without the pressure of having to put an exchange value on their items or themselves.

The value of the RRFM as an enabling space for people who wish to experiment without having too much attention and pressure placed on them is expressed by Mr. Tan Shao Han, 25, a regular Singapore FFRM participant and storyteller:

“You meet so many talented people who want to do something good and beautiful and help others, and who are all so shy and struggling to do something to nurture their own talents and they don’t have any place they think they can come to, and so they come here, and they give, and give, and they learn how to value themselves and their lives.”

Ms. Tay Shi Ying, 19, is one such market participant who has benefited from the low barriers to entry in the RRFM, as well as from the informal exchanges between market participant facilitated by the open, accessible and explicitly ‘non-economic’ setting of the market. Says Ms. Tay:

“I once gave free massages at RRFM and my skills became more refined when I was taught by another stall holder who has learnt massaging before (…) and I would like to continue doing it. It seems that at the RRFM, people tend to be less guarded towards each other and are very much friendlier, probably because the spirit of giving makes us more willing to share without seeking anything in return, hence we will not fear being on the ‘losing end’ in an economic exchange. Because of the diversity of the ‘stalls’, it gives us opportunities to pick up new skills from someone else, plan future collaborations with people we meet at the RRFM and also meet people with similar skills and interests.”

Mr. Quek Ser Ming, 26, another SRRFM regular and a professional tarot card reader, also reflects on how the FFRM gives those who work in the formal economy as opportunity to offer services to those who would not usually be able to afford them. Says Mr. Quek:

“Fees for tarot reading can be a bit steep in Singapore, so for me (what’s enjoyable) is being able to provide insight to aid people who are seeking. (…) If you charge cheaper, in our line, people may think you’re half-past-six.”

Says Ms Elaine Lim, 21, a participant at the October run of the SRRFM: “People are also more willing to try things like yoga or spiritual healing since it’s free!”

In this light, the RRFM creates an opportunity both for ‘buyers’ to benefit from luxury services, as well as ‘sellers’ to benefit by providing these services sincerely and altruistically, thus creating market ‘exchanges’ that would not have existed in the formal economy, and encouraging these market ‘exchanges’ to take on a meaningful and enjoyable social dimension. Storr (2008) describes how social relationships that are not necessarily linked to the market are often “enriched by the proliferation of new and diverse market spaces”, highlighting mom and pop stores that people “know and trust” and are thus “willing to pay a premium for”. In the case of the SRRFM, these social relationships are central to participants’ experience and enjoyment of the RRFM, with survey respondents indicating ‘meeting new people that you can learn from’, ‘making new friends’, ‘meeting different people’, ‘sharing with others’, ‘the people I meet’ and ‘interesting personalities’ as aspects of the market they found most memorable.

Due to the absence of formal governance structures that dictate who can ‘sell’ and what can be ‘sold’ at the RRFM, what results in a rich, diverse, heterogeneous mix of products and services. In the Carrboro, North Carolina Really Really Free Market, there are “goods, services, skills, performances, stories, crafts, food, games, music, clothing, furniture, plants, and a wide range of used and recycled items” (Casas-Cortés et al., 2008). Similarly, in the SRRFM (See Fig. 1 in Appendix), there is also a wide range of goods for giveaway including art materials, books, comics, stationery, artwork, jewelry, bags, clothes, and toys, as well as free services such as storytelling, letter writing, yoga, tarot card reading, caricature, IT repair and, once, philosophical counseling!

Says Ms. Ong Xiao Yun, another regular SRRFM market participant:

“(What’s most memorable about the RRFM is) enjoying a variety of different services and learning new things in a span of few hours! Have not found the most memorable yet, but Bala’s (another market participant’s) reading of ‘the giving tree’ was a wonderful moment!”

This diversity of products and services not only makes available to market participants a wide range of social experiences, but frequently introduces a ‘surprise’ element to the RRFM as well, as participants never know what to expect with each event.

Another important observation from the previous runs of the RRFM is that the bulk of market participants are not those who intentionally come for the RRFM, but South Asian workers from the surrounding Little India neighbourhood who happen to walk past Post-Museum and are curious about the items on display. These migrant workers, many of whom are low-income construction workers in Singapore, often take items for their own use as well as to send to their families back home. (See Fig. 2 in Appendix). As shopping is a common denominator of most social activity in Singapore, the RRFM model is accessible to almost everyone and creates a unique opportunity for people of different ages and diverse economic, social and national backgrounds to partake in a common experience.

Says Mr. Sudév Suth, 21, a RRFM October participant:

“Because the event was held in Little India, lots of migrant workers came to take a look at the items being given away. This, for me, was really important. Singapore has and is heavily dependent on the work of migrant workers yet they are often, I believe, exploited by their employers. It seems to me that they are a marginalized segment of our society. RRFM is an example of how bridges can be built between migrant workers and Singaporeans.”

Other market participants felt that the inclusion of these migrant workers in the non-economic setting of the RRFM had made the event even more meaningful, and that the RRFM could be extended to other areas with low-income and marginalized communities.

Says Mr. Yi Zheng, 19, another RRFM October participant:

“Yes (the RRFM should be held in Post-Museum) because Little India is where most of the foreign workers are and they are sometimes less fortunate than the locals. (…) Chinatown could also be an idea, because the Chinese foreign workers mainly gather there.”

A final aspect of social significance I wish to highlight is the way in which ‘non-intuitive’ forms of social control occur in the informal market setting of the SRRFM. As Ms. Natalia Tan, 18, a RRFM October participant observes:

“(What’s most amazing about the RRFM is) that everything is free, yet I find people showing consideration for others by not taking all the nice 2nd hand clothes or hogging all the tarot-reading time.”

This phenomenon was also observed in the Carrboro, North Carolina Really Really Free Market in which “some newcomers were timid—wrangling with their (initial) expectations that in order to take an item, they first had to give an item. Picking up books, kitchen items, and winter coats, without being required to provide something in direct exchange, people behaved with a different kind of economic sensibility.” The space created by the RRFM for this ‘different kind of economic sensibility’, in which market participants behave cooperatively, rather than competitively, and actively consider the needs of other participants has the potential both to encourage the building of mutual trust and respect between market participants, and the creation of informal forms of social ordering based, based on collective, rather than individualistic, norms.

Whose Market? Place- and meaning-making in the SRRFM

As the spatial and temporal manifestation of an ideology, the SRRFM at Post-Museum is both an important symbol for market participants, as well as an actual ‘lived place’ made by participants through spatial practice, and from which they derive meaning – collectively constituting ‘knowledge- practices’ which can inform further thought and action (Kurzman, 2008).

The symbolic value of the RRFM as an alternative to the capitalist system is evident as its ‘non- economic’ setting contrasts significantly with the highly competitive ‘economic’ settings ubiquitous in Singapore society. As noted by a number of RRFM participants, the RRFM…

“…symbolically, it’s a form of protest against the materialism that undergirds Singaporeans’ ways of life.” – Mr. Sudév Suth “…reminds us that things cannot be measured in purely economical terms and tells us to appreciate the intangibles. This is especially important for Singapore which is so economically driven that we tend to apply economic concepts on everything, even on things like relationships with people – making friends only when they promise benefits.” – Ms. Tay Shi Ying
” …can be used as a medium to cultivate the spirit of giving and sharing; recycle and reuse. I find that these values may be lacking and many skills are overly commercialized and tagged with high price.” – Mr. Quek Ser Ming
The symbolic value of RRFM as an alternative to the conventional economic system is enhanced precisely because the RRFM provides a physical setting wherein those who believe in, and wish to partake in, the collective experience of (temporarily) living a ‘non-economic’ life, can do so. As articulated by Mr. Seelan Palay, 25,

” Our government tells us to be ‘gracious’ but does not set an example itself. So the RRFM is an example of people getting together and being ‘gracious’ on their own accord, without the need for silly ads featuring an outdated comedian with yellow boots.”

The spatial practices performed by RRFM participants, including, but not limited to, bringing items for giving away, engaging the services of and chatting with other market participants, or simply taking things away, are processes that both inspire a sense of collective participation in a common cause and encourage participants to reflect further about the economic systems and social conditions that structure their lives. The physical setting of the RRFM enables participants to simultaneously practice and critically reflect on the viability of alternative means of exchange. Mr. Tan Shao Han encapsulates this sentiment beautifully in his reflection below:

“It’s not that RRFM is important in itself, but rather that its presence and the possibility for it to exist in the first place allows people in Singapore access to a cultural model of reference to make sense of the exchange of goods and services in a non-commercial manner.”

The place- and meaning-making processes that occur when market participants collectively produce the space of the SRRFM through experimenting within the space, learning from each other, and reflecting on their experience can generate many rich ‘knowledge-practices’ such as methods of communication with a diverse target audience, spontaneous organization – whereby market stall holders adjust their programmes or services slightly to complement rather than compete with each other, and interdisciplinary learning and collaboration – whereby market stall holders and participants exchange knowledges and built upon them to achieve common goals either within the RRFM setting or beyond it. Through an intertwining of personal and place identity with the collective experience of creating ‘knowledge-practices’, the SRRFM can further contribute to a sense of belonging and attachment to place amongst market participants.

The embeddedness of the RRFM in the context of Singapore civil society is also instructive. As highlighted by Lacey (2005) in her study on networked communities and social centres in Britain, places (whether physical or online) wherein activists can operate autonomously, learn from each other, collaborate, disseminate information or simply come together to feel part of a larger movement, are essential to creating and sustaining shared understandings and visions. The SRRFM exhibits many of these features, as previously discussed. The location of the SRRFM at Post-Museum is both symbolic and practical as the social centre is well-known amongst local social movements for supporting ethical and sustainable alternative to living1 and, hence, has been able draw support from activists who frequent Post-Museum to participate in the market, as well as spread the word to their individual networks. In addition, Post-Museum is situated within the wider ‘activist neighbourhood’ of Little India, home also to migrant rights organizations such as the Migrant Voices and H.O.M.E, and socially-inclined cultural establishments such as Your Mother Gallery, spell #7 and Good Books. This has enabled Post-Museum to benefit from publicity and support from other social and cultural centres in the district, and also makes Post-Museum’s location highly accessible to those communities likely to be supportive of the SRRFM’s counter-capitalist ideology. The symbolic and practical location of SRRFM at Post Museum thus can thus help inculcate in market participants from the neighbourhood a strong sense of belonging to the neighbourhood (Forrest and Kearns, 2001). However, as Post- Museum also publicizes the SRRFM on its online mailing list and its 763-member strong Facebook group, the reach of the SRRFM extends well beyond the neighbourhood, as well as local activist and civil society circuits.

(No) Debt to Pleasure: Some Concluding Remarks

Taking together perspectives on the social role of the Really Really Free Market, as well as place- and meaning-making processes facilitated by its unique market setting and situation suggest that the SRRFM may be a viable ‘third space’ within the context of Singapore society, providing temporary relief from the trappings of the ‘competitive, economic’ everyday life through creating a neutral, egalitarian environment whereby social interaction is centrestage and the processes of collective learning and play are encouraged and facilitated. Following from the reflections of market participants, as well as my personal experiences of the SRRFM, it is clear that one the fundamental dynamics sustaining the SFFRM is the indeed the enjoyment of “being ‘apart together’ in an exceptional situation, of sharing something important, (and) mutually withdrawing from the rest of the world and rejecting the usual norms” (Oldenburg, 1991) – characteristics of a genuine ‘third space’. The experiences at the SFFRM are made more meaningful and socially significant because the market itself is produced and sustained by market participants bringing items and skills, and participating in the camaraderie generated by market activities. The liminal, reflexive space created by the SRRFM consequently facilitates processes of place- and meaning-making and the generation of knowledge- practices that both enrich the space, as well as the social experiences of those participating in it.

These are the main aims of AWARE’s research are to:

• Understand the lives, aspirations and challenges of singles in Singapore, particularly women.
• Identify attitudes (public, state, media) towards and policies that concern singles
• Identify impact of such attitudes and policies on singles
• Address areas of discrimination and make recommendations wherever possible to improve the situation.

Read more for specific research questions:

• What is it like for resident singles living in Singapore? How does marital status influence the quality of life of Singaporean singles?
• Which and how /to what extent do state discourses and policies shape those experiences and impact adversely on the single?
• Which groups of singles are most marginalised and how?
• How may media representation and public opinion (investigated as secondary factors?) contribute in shaping those experiences?
• How do different groups of singles react to and to what extent are they able to resist those state discourses/policies, media representation and public opinion that marginalise?
• How may changes in state discourses/policies, media representation and public opinion contribute to more better quality of life for the marginalised singles?

Please contact Mr. Michael Cheng (touchdesun@gmail.com) for more details.

Please contact Mr. Michael Cheng (touchdesun@gmail.com) for more details.

Please contact Mr. Michael Cheng (touchdesun@gmail.com) for more details.

WeSearch!’s main role is to provide this platform to connect civil society groups with enthusiastic youth like you. We play no part in selecting researchers, or supervising the research.

That is the role of the civil society group you work with – so please contact them directly, though we request that you let us know which research issue you have choped so that we can update our portal!

[]
Before you begin,

• Think critically about the research questions at hand. Ask: Given this civil society organization’s mission and objectives, why are they interested in finding out about this. Does this research support one of their core programmes? Are they hoping to put together an awareness brochure or advocacy paper? Email them and find out more about why they’ve selected these issues as their research priorities, before deciding if their motivation is aligned with yours.
• Think about your own research interests and schedule. You’re here because you’re interested in research and concerned about social issues. Are these topics you would like to tackle for a term paper or theses? Are these questions you’d be interested to find answers for? How much time do you have? Don’t be daunted by the diverse range of issues, or the depth and breadth they require. Be clear about what you want to do, and how much you can do – and let the civil society organization know the extent to which you would like to help.

[]
Game? Here’s what to do:

1. Browse through the “Research Wanted” list, or our list of research partners, to get a sense of what community research is required.
2. After you’ve chosen a research issue you’re interested in, send an email to the contact person listed for more details as well as to determine the scope and scale of the research. You could conduct research in conjunction with an academic module, or independently as a volunteer. There is absolutely no commitment at this stage.
3. If you’ve confirmed a research issue to tackle, drop us an email at wesearchsg@gmail.com to let us know what topic you’ve taken and how we may contact you.
4. That’s it! On our side, we’ll follow up with you and your chosen research partner, as well as update our portal to indicate research that has been taken – as well as provide your contact details (or nickname) so that other interested researchers can get in touch with you directly, or indirectly through us. Thank You!

[]
Here are some possible activities you may be engaged with, anywhere from a day to a year!

• Interviewing individuals from specific communities (i.e. foreign workers, sex workers, singles) to find out about their experiences in Singapore either generally, or with respect to specific issues such as access to social services and working conditions
• Transcribing interviews and converting interviews to a digital format, or analyzing interviews and preparing a report on what they reveal
• Accompanying (undercover) journalists to investigate a social phenomenon, and publish a report about you saw or experienced
• Scouring through journals, newspapers and books for information to compile lists of relevant literature or to better understand how an issue has been portrayed in the mainstream
• Analyzing information that has already been gathered – for example, counting instances of reported abuses recorded in foreign worker case files or email correspondences
• Scanning Yellow Pages and the internet to compile lists of contacts required by a civil society group for a programme: health services, food services…or information such as relevant government policies
• Conducting a survey or social experiment amongst your peers to find out their attitudes on particular issues or towards particular groups of people
• Traversing the island to map social phenomena – such as the spatial distribution of community food programmes, or the proximity of brothels to social service agencies
• This list is endless!

[]
You will be acknowledged for your efforts. Most civil society organizations will try to provide you with an allowance for assisting with their research, and may renumerate you as well for a job well done. They may publish your work, or organize a seminar for you to share. However, it is likely that the value of your experience will center on intangibles – who doesn’t feel better doing their bit for social change? We’re non-profits, not well-funded think-tanks, so come with an open heart and you’ll get the most out of WeSearch!

[]
Email us at wesearchsg@gmail.com if you have further queries – we usually get back in a day or two!

Please contact the sgcompassion@gmail.com for more details.

• Conducting a study on the access to health systems for migrant workers on work injury claims
• Investigting how user-friendly is the Ministry of Manpower bureaucracy from the perspective of a male foreign worker in trouble? (The report will be mainly descriptive, and will include accounts by foreign workers who have to deal with MoM and the problems they run into such as the lack of knowledge of channels available, language, customer service and support, duration of wait, etc.)

Please contact Ms. Sha Najak (helpline@twc2.org.sg) for more details.

• Listing the various legislature, policies and policing matters relevant to sex work in Singapore
• Conducting a study of the motivation of sex workers and institutional factors supporting the sex work industry: understanding the push and pull factors
• Understanding the living/working conditions of sex work (required: volunteers who can speak Thai, Vietnamese, Bahasa Indonesia, Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi)
• Understanding the spatial arrangement of sex work in Geylang
• Doing a content analysis of recent literature on sex work in Singapore
• Analyzing the strategies employed by sex worker organizations to support sex workers – international case studies
• Conducting a comparative law study on sex work legislature, policies and policing matters
• Conducting quantitative studies on sex work, such as needs assessments for sex workers in Singapore
• Conducting a street survey on attitudes/perceptions about sex work and sex workers
• Analyzing media discourse regarding how sex workers are portrayed and how the sex work issue is discussed in the mainstream

Please contact Ms Wong Yock Leng (scmsing@gmail.com) for more details.